a reply to: Spiramirabilis
You guys should check out the late Fletcher Prouty and his book; if you haven't already...it's a good primer on the CIA - what it is and what it
isn't...not full of opinion, Prouty was the real deal, and having come from the "community" it is a good representation of how stuff goes.

Also, as a cold war veteran I can tell you the Russian gov't controls what people think. So, while the government is our issue - the people are
equally fed mis/dis information...been happening for years. I was briefed by the Adm who went to Russia in the bicentennial exchange of warships...and
I can tell you the old Soviet Gov't was in fact the evil empire and Putin is a by-product of that era. No bs, no frills, no pretentious activity -
Trump was/is a willing dupe. He thinks he's smart...Putin will eat his lunch by 10:00. Check out the book by Fletcher Prouty - excellent background on
the CIA.

originally posted by: mangust69
as to profane the bed? Your recent liberals were ready to give their lives for the freedom to desecrate the museum youtu.be...youtu.be... and temple in Russia

So far no-one has voiced an objection to Trump having unusual sexual tastes. The problem is that if even one thing in the dossier is true, Trump can
be blackmailed by the Kremlin. Putin's support for Trump was an issue from the beginning of the campaign. Remember how Trump had to ditch Manafort
when his ties to Russia became too much in the spotlight? There is nothing new here.

Fortunately nothing is true and the parts we could confirm turned out to be lies. We have to assume the rest is lies as well. But for some reason you
can't wrap your head around that.

You also continue to engage in blatant logical fallacy's.

If I say you like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and that is true, but then I also say you like to pee on your own face, should we assume the
second is true because the first is as well? Don't be ridiculous.

Fortunately nothing is true and the parts we could confirm turned out to be lies. We have to assume the rest is lies as well. But for some reason you
can't wrap your head around that.

You also continue to engage in blatant logical fallacy's.

If I say you like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and that is true, but then I also say you like to pee on your own face, should we assume the
second is true because the first is as well? Don't be ridiculous.

originally posted by: DJW001The problem is that if even one thing in the dossier is true, Trump can be blackmailed by the
Kremlin. Putin's support for Trump was an issue from the beginning of the campaign. Remember how Trump had to ditch Manafort when his ties to Russia
became too much in the spotlight? There is nothing new here.

It's all a bunch of nonsense. Whenever you hear the media crying about Russia, think about their patron, the gulf Arabs; the Saudis, Qatar, UAE, etc,
and their bankers in the UK. That's who this is all really about.

The Arabs own a huge chunk of the US economy because of decades and decades of selling us oil/gas for dollars. Both parties took the money, and it
mostly came through corporations which Saudi etc money were entirely or partially in control of. It's harder to keep track of Arab money in US
interests because royalty-state owned companies like Aramco do not open their books. Their control and influence is a huge part of why so many
corporations became so anti-American beginning around the 50s and 60s.

The Saudis et all are funding 'western decadence' to destroy us. That's the short version. For decades, both parties took the money and did as they
were told. The politicians that took their money(all legally, of course), the corporations who know who really controls the company, etc are all
scared because Trump and his deep state faction are not connected to it and the US is a significant oil producer itself again now.

So that's the real huge scandal here amidst all this 'Russian boogeyman' nonsense, and breaking it wide open is the end-game. Or, it would be, if they
persist now that Trump is in office.

Thus, expect the Russia this Russia that talk to fade now that Trump is President. The Arab/UK interests will back off that point now or they are
truly stupid.

If I say you like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and that is true, but then I also say you like to pee on your own face, should we assume the
second is true because the first is as well? Don't be ridiculous.

You are the one engaging in logical fallacies. If I say you like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but then I also say you like to pee on your own
face, should we assume the first is false because the second is false? No, you may still like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even if you don't pee
on your own face. Each claim needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

Of course, the document in question is based entirely on hearsay, and therefore is of low credibility. Nevertheless, the issue that it raises is
legitimate and important. Russian intelligence does collect compromising materials on visitors who may prove useful. Trump's lack of self control may
have given them a great deal of fodder.

We will see how this administration's Russia policy develops. The Ambassador's speech at the UN was encouraging, but there's no telling who is really
calling the shots when it comes to actual policy.

That isn't what you are doing. Your posts are easily sortable. Your very first post assumes Trump has always had to pay for sex, it's even bolded. You
engaged in a logical fallacy to jump to such a conclusion.

So far nothing in the dossier is true, yet you are making assumptions hoping that some of it *might be true.

That isn't what you are doing. Your posts are easily sortable. Your very first post assumes Trump has always had to pay for sex, it's even
bolded. You engaged in a logical fallacy to jump to such a conclusion.

That's not a logical fallacy, it's because I was following his antics in Spy, years before you were born apparently. Granted, those are rumors
and gossip, but it's plausible. Trump loves his arm candy.

So far nothing in the dossier is true, yet you are making assumptions hoping that some of it *might be true.

Pay attention please. I have never said that anything in the dossier was true. I have consistently pointed out that it doesn't matter. The FSB can
easily fake any sort of potentially embarrassing evidence it wants, and Trump's vanity makes him particularly vulnerable. Incidentally, if you had a
reasonable argument you wouldn't need to keep putting words in other peoples' mouths.

So because he likes arm candy he must pay for sex and the dossier is believable with a hint of truth (ALL words you used in this thread to describe
it)? Do you really not understand how that was yet another logical fallacy?

All this time has gone by and much of it has been disproved with NONE of it being proven. Again, you bolded that he has always had to pay for sex,
something you have zero proof of. If anything, it has been easy for him to meet/date women as a very wealthy and powerful individual. Shame on you for
thinking pretty women are automatically prostitutes.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.